Case 1808894/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Z Hussain, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808894/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought unfair dismissal claims after their employment ended. The respondent defended the claims on the basis that the dismissals were fair by reason of redundancy. The hearing concerned whether the claimants had materially complied with an unless order requiring them to provide evidence, witness statements, and confirmation of compliance.
The tribunal found that there had not been material compliance with the unless order, including because witness statements had not been provided in line with the orders made. The claims were therefore struck out, subject to the claimants' application for the order dismissing the claims to be set aside.
The tribunal then decided, on balance, that it was in the interests of justice to set aside the order dismissing the claims. It concluded that a fair trial remained possible if the claimants were restricted in their evidence in chief to the contents of the claim form, and the claims were allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. It found the claimants had not materially complied with an unless order, resulting in dismissal of the claims, but then set aside that dismissal in the interests of justice so the claims could proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(2)
- Thind
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.